"I have always thought the Pentagon strike was 'Iffy' to say the least"

Why vous ne compre?

Sorry I don't speak norwegian

But yes I know you think the Pentagon side of 911 was iffy ( which Is why I find it odd you still conclude it was 19 Islamic Hijackers that did it ( or maybe less than 19 hijackers given there was nothing to hijack for the Pentagon : )

I was speaking to anyone reading btw- not you specifically

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

And that fire in the Chechen building is far more intense than the random smaller fires in WTC7. Fucking US regime are taking the piss with this collapsed due to fire and collateral damage bollocks. they can't even get their NIST engineers to explain it. Even after two attempts

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

The Pentagon didnt collapse... A bit of it did following some sort of explosion. What caused that explosion is a mystery.

WTC7 has been explained by many people including NIST but for some unfathomable reason, you dont want to accept it so there is little point in discussing it.

However, comparing other tall buildings that have suffered fire and not collapsed with those that did following the events of 9/11 is like comparing chalk with cheese. Different buildings with different structural properties and different causes of collapse completely. Have you not remembered that one of the towers (cant remember which, off hand) suffered a quite serious fire before 9/11 and it didnt collapse then?... Thats because it was a totally different circumstance just like the other buildings that you and the other CT believers frequently compare with.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:The Pentagon didnt collapse... A bit of it did following some sort of explosion. What caused that explosion is a mystery.

WTC7 has been explained by many people including NIST but for some unfathomable reason, you dont want to accept it so there is little point in discussing it.

However, comparing other tall buildings that have suffered fire and not collapsed with those that did following the events of 9/11 is like comparing chalk with cheese. Different buildings with different structural properties and different causes of collapse completely. Have you not remembered that one of the towers (cant remember which, off hand) suffered a quite serious fire before 9/11 and it didnt collapse then?... Thats because it was a totally different circumstance just like the other buildings that you and the other CT believers frequently compare with.

I don't accept NISTs explanation because they don't have an explanation. And neither does anyone else NIST cannot explain how the 50 odd outer columns of WTC7 all failed at the same time. NIST cannot explain why part of the collapse of WTC7 was at freefall speed.

The reason NIST cannot explain the collapse of WTC7 is because they weren't allowed to. NIST were told in advance the reason WTC7 collapsed and were told to provide an explanation to fit. They failed to provide something convincing enough the first time and thus were told to try again. An they failed a second time.

You might as well have given NIST a duck, told them it wasn't a duck and then told them to explain why.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

No.. you dont want to accept NIST's findings because it dosent support your own opinions. At least be honest about it. If NIST has stated that there was no evidence for any collapse other than secretly planted explosive devices, you would be shouting that from the highest mountain.

At no point have NIST stated that ALL 50 odd columns failed at exactly the same time. What they have said, is that the critical column (column 79 IIRC - essentially the buildings backbone) failed resulting in the collapse. Read through this thread again.There is plenty of footage of the building burning for hours before it collapsed and plenty of pictures showing significant damage from falling debris of the other towers, yet you persist with this "No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire" bollocks when in actual fact, plenty have.

The pre planted explosives by men in black suits conspiracy is flawed on so many levels and has been highlighted in the past but you, for reasons obvious, refuse to accept it.Accept it man... The 'orchestration' of 9/11 may be a questionable subject but the collapse of the buildings is frankly irrelevant as no insurance company would expect them to be 'patched up' and the 'evidence' of pre planted explosives would be harder to conceal than their 'other' reasons for collapse that the explosives were planted to conceal.The 'orchestration' is a valid subject and one fit for discussion... the collapses however, is plain bollocks and supported only by the gullible.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:No.. you dont want to accept NIST's findings because it dosent support your own opinions. At least be honest about it. If NIST has stated that there was no evidence for any collapse other than secretly planted explosive devices, you would be shouting that from the highest mountain.

No I don't accept NIST's 'reports' becuase there is no explanation

At no point have NIST stated that ALL 50 odd columns failed at exactly the same time. What they have said, is that the critical column (column 79 IIRC - essentially the buildings backbone) failed resulting in the collapse. Read through this thread again.There is plenty of footage of the building burning for hours before it collapsed and plenty of pictures showing significant damage from falling debris of the other towers, yet you persist with this "No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire" bollocks when in actual fact, plenty have.

The pre planted explosives by men in black suits conspiracy is flawed on so many levels and has been highlighted in the past but you, for reasons obvious, refuse to accept it.Accept it man... The 'orchestration' of 9/11 may be a questionable subject but the collapse of the buildings is frankly irrelevant as no insurance company would expect them to be 'patched up' and the 'evidence' of pre planted explosives would be harder to conceal than their 'other' reasons for collapse that the explosives were planted to conceal.The 'orchestration' is a valid subject and one fit for discussion... the collapses however, is plain bollocks and supported only by the gullible.[/quote]

I didn't say they had stated that "ALL 50 odd columns failed at exactly the same time". In fact that's part of the problem. The ONLY way WTC7 could have collapsed straight down ( and we all agree it did don't we? ) is if all 50 odd ( 53? ) outer columns failed at the same time ( or within milliseconds of each other. That's the laws of physics and I'm afraid NIST can't change that. I'm not surprised they didn't mention it as that would would require some awkward explaining which would embarrass the US Regime.

For the building to stay in equilibrium the supporting columns must provide a force upwards equal and opposite to the force the mass of the building is directed towards the earth at ht those supporting points. Anything else and there's movement. If you take away those reactionary upward forces in anyway that isn't equal then when the building collapses it won't be straight down but in a non vertical direction. The building collapsed straight down. And if you look at the video of it collapsing it's amazingly precise in it's straight down collapse. random fires and damage could NOT have caused this

There is plenty of footage of the building burning for hours before it collapsed and plenty of pictures showing significant damage from falling debris of the other towers,

So what?

I never said there wasn't fire or damage. I've seen all the pictures of the fire and damage. The big problem for NIST and others who try and fit an explanation to a pre-determined outcome is that these random fires and random damage were asymmetrical. The way WTC7 collapsed is completely symmetrical.

Accept it man...

No. Not in a million years. Why? Because the laws of physics say otherwise. I'm not going to accept something that simply didn't happen, especially when NO ONE has provide any evidence or explanation to to show otherwise

As for being gullible? In terms of WTC7 what or who am I being gullible to? I've concluded WTC7 was a demolition through original analysis. I haven't blindly believed anything or anyone.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

Mr Squirrel wrote:No.. you dont want to accept NIST's findings because it dosent support your own opinions. At least be honest about it. If NIST has stated that there was no evidence for any collapse other than secretly planted explosive devices, you would be shouting that from the highest mountain.

At no point have NIST stated that ALL 50 odd columns failed at exactly the same time. What they have said, is that the critical column (column 79 IIRC - essentially the buildings backbone) failed resulting in the collapse. Read through this thread again.There is plenty of footage of the building burning for hours before it collapsed and plenty of pictures showing significant damage from falling debris of the other towers, yet you persist with this "No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire" bollocks when in actual fact, plenty have.

The pre planted explosives by men in black suits conspiracy is flawed on so many levels and has been highlighted in the past but you, for reasons obvious, refuse to accept it.Accept it man... The 'orchestration' of 9/11 may be a questionable subject but the collapse of the buildings is frankly irrelevant as no insurance company would expect them to be 'patched up' and the 'evidence' of pre planted explosives would be harder to conceal than their 'other' reasons for collapse that the explosives were planted to conceal.The 'orchestration' is a valid subject and one fit for discussion... the collapses however, is plain bollocks and supported only by the gullible.

So one column (the critical one) fails and the whole building collapses? I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to build a tower with one critical supporting column. Unless it was like a 5th of the buildings area.

Stan, your body is the most amazing machine ever built... See how good it is with a broken spine. Many buildings have points that are 'critical' within the make up of the general structure. These work perfectly well until something catastrophic happens that causes them to fail. Fortunately, 99.9% of the time, such 'catastrophes' never happen.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Yes the failure of one member can lead to a progressive collapse. Although to be honest it's highly unlikely as buildings are not designed so ridiculously tight to. There are huge safety margins of redundancy in compression and tension loads.

But the point you are seemingly refusing to acknowledge, or ignoring, is that such a progressive failure would lead to an asymmetrical collapse.

Not only have we got the extremely slim odds of WTC7 collapsing in the place due to these fires and random damage i nthe first place, but if it did collapse due to these factors then the manner of collapse would NOT have been extracly stright down, with the centre zone collpasing a split second before hand to ensure it collapsed into it's own footprint to avoid damaging neighbouring buildings.

WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The laws of physics prove it couldn't have been anything other than a controlled demolition and, crikey, watch the video of it collapsing, it looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

smeggypants wrote:WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The laws of physics prove it couldn't have been anything other than a controlled demolition and, crikey, watch the video of it collapsing, it looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

Yet in another thread, you said....

smeggypants wrote:Indeed, but I've seen examples of ladyboys that had me fooled for a while

They may have looked exactly like women... but they werent.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

smeggypants wrote:WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The laws of physics prove it couldn't have been anything other than a controlled demolition and, crikey, watch the video of it collapsing, it looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

Yet in another thread, you said....

smeggypants wrote:Indeed, but I've seen examples of ladyboys that had me fooled for a while

They may have looked exactly like women... but they werent.

Funny, but not a valid analogy

A bloke intentionally dressing up and making up as a woman is a bit different from a non-self aware building which hasn't the ability to decide to make itself look like a controlled demolition.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

Its not about how the ladyboy 'looks' or how the collapse 'looks'... Its about what the reality is and your (ones) perception of it.The point is, that your frequently repeated phrase of "If it walks and quacks like a duck" is flawed because that is often not the case.

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Mr Squirrel wrote:Its not about how the ladyboy 'looks' or how the collapse 'looks'... Its about what the reality is and your (ones) perception of it.The point is, that your frequently repeated phrase of "If it walks and quacks like a duck" is flawed because that is often not the case.

Even an eighth grade dropout knows WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

Exactly.... it's pathetic. I've gotten so tired of trying to explain to people why what's seen in the video of WTC 7 is a physical impossiility! All one really needs is one fact to sort out whether WTC 7 came down with explosives or not.... gravitational acceleration.

What part of David Chandlers simple explanation is it that people don't get?